Enforcement on the traffic

[TinMan]

Speeding may be a different crime, but it is still a form of reckless driving.

Very true. I was going to post that until I saw this.

Reckless driving is not conditional at all. If you drive recklessly, it's reckless driving. It's pretty straightforward. It doesn't matter who is around, it is still a crime.

Agreed.

[Pingster]

I'm not justifying anything, I'm interpreting what the Constitution states. It doesn't say "Reckless driving is understood as driving in a reckless manner". Instead, what is says is that if my driving can endanger other citizens, it's reckless driving. Now, as our argument shows, it can be interpreted in different ways, however, we must pick only one way, for sake of continuity. So which one do you think is more appropriate?

• If the driving in any possible situation has the potential of endangering citizens, it's reckless

Which means that I have full legal right to pull you over every time you get in a car, and cash in 250$ from you, because I can come up with ways how driving a car can endanger citizens

or

• If the driving at that given moment and place endangers other citizens, it's reckless

Which means that you pull over people when they're actually endangering others.

You can't just go "In some situations we'll interpret it this way, in some situations we'll interpret it that way", you can't switch it up when it suits you, that's absolutely corrupted way of thinking.

[SugarD]

I'm not justifying anything, I'm interpreting what the Constitution states. It doesn't say "Reckless driving is understood as driving in a reckless manner". Instead, what is says is that if my driving can endanger other citizens, it's reckless driving. Now, as our argument shows, it can be interpreted in different ways, however, we must pick only one way, for sake of continuity. So which one do you think is more appropriate?

• If the driving in any possible situation has the potential of endangering citizens, it's reckless

Which means that I have full legal right to pull you over every time you get in a car, and cash in 250$ from you, because I can come up with ways how driving a car can endanger citizens

or

• If the driving at that given moment and place endangers other citizens, it's reckless

Which means that you pull over people when they're actually endangering others.

You can't just go "In some situations we'll interpret it this way, in some situations we'll interpret it that way", you can't switch it up when it suits you, that's absolutely corrupted way of thinking.

What about the property that can be damaged by reckless driving? What about the animals who can be hurt? What about you, yourself, as a person in the vehicle who can be injured by your reckless driving? It does not matter who is around. It is still illegal. The constitution makes no exceptions to this.

[Pingster]

What about the property that can be damaged by reckless driving? What about the animals who can be hurt? What about you, yourself, as a person in the vehicle who can be injured by your reckless driving? It does not matter who is around. It is still illegal. The constitution makes no exceptions to this.

Damaging property is a different law, Section III, Act I, but it is NOT reckless driving as understood by the Constitution. Also, it's actually damaging property, not endangering property, just in case you bring that up.
There are no laws regarding hurting of animals.
Constitution is very clear that for it to be reckless driving, it has to endanger other citizens, there are no laws regarding injuring yourself.

The wording of Act III.I states that police may take action upon a driver only if the form of driving can endanger other citizens. So I can drive like a baboon, unless I damage property, endanger other citizens, drive in the wrong lane or go over speed limit.

[SugarD]

Damaging property is a different law, Section III, Act I, but it is NOT reckless driving as understood by the Constitution. Also, it's actually damaging property, not endangering property, just in case you bring that up.
There are no laws regarding hurting of animals.
Constitution is very clear that for it to be reckless driving, it has to endanger other citizens, there are no laws regarding injuring yourself.

The wording of Act III.I states that police may take action upon a driver only if the form of driving can endanger other citizens. So I can drive like a baboon, unless I damage property, endanger other citizens, drive in the wrong lane or go over speed limit.

Damage to property may be a crime in itself, but that does not mean that it cannot be caused by reckless driving. Likewise, hit and run is a separate crime from reckless driving, but it can also be caused by it. That still does not excuse you to ever drive recklessly.

[Pingster]

What exactly do you mean by reckless driving? Reckless driving as in a reason to be pulled over? If no citizens were endangered, it would be an invalid reason. Reckless driving as in driving like a baboon, but following all the road laws? Completely permitted.

[SugarD]

What exactly do you mean by reckless driving? Reckless driving as in a reason to be pulled over? If no citizens were endangered, it would be an invalid reason. Reckless driving as in driving like a baboon, but following all the road laws? Completely permitted.

If you are following all the road laws, you wouldn't be driving like a baboon.

[TheLegitHabibi]

Its very simple... According to the constitution, any driving the potiontial to harm citizens is considered reckless. Since were talking about the potential, the fact that there is anybody around goes down the drain.
I'm not on anyone's side. Repeating what the constitution says.

If you drive like a baboon, you have the potential to harm citizens. Now if you all focus on the word potential, it might be more clear.

Potential - having a capacity to be doing something on the future.

If you drive like a baboon, you have the potential to harm someone. Note that there isn't, and shouldn't be a reason to argue that there was no one around.

If you don't agree with it, you don't agree with the law. Because that's exactly what the constitution states.




Since I've said that, I also want to know what this debate is all about?

Going to a different crime, shootin

[TinMan]

Since I've said that, I also want to know what this debate is all about?

Going to a different crime, shootin

Good point you made by the way, James Bond. The main debate is about this following video whether reversing in lane is considered reckless driving or not.

Chief_Hardy || VOSA Case #006

[SugarD]

Good point you made by the way, James Bond. The main debate is about this following video whether reversing in lane is considered reckless driving or not.

Chief_Hardy || VOSA Case #006

If you are backing up to adjust the angle of your vehicle/park, no. If you are driving in reverse, yes. Driving in reverse is dangerous because cars were not designed to drive distances in that direction, hence why the forward gear is called "drive", and the reverse gear is called "reverse" in cars.

If the person in the video was driving down the ramp and saw something in the road, and decided to reverse and then change lanes to drive around it, that wouldn't be reckless. What is happening in the video is, indeed, reckless.

[ClazzyJogel]

So in short police officers can suspect people as they see fit, with no evidence and they are in the right? I'm sorry but that is just corruption waiting to happen. Every citizen should have the legal right to take an officers claim to court regardless.

If you are talking about reckless driving, yes a witnessing officer is all thats needed to punish an infraction.

http://arpd.argonathrpg.com/forum/index.php?topic=28990.40 - good example.

[Pingster]

any driving the potiontial to harm citizens is considered reckless. Since were talking about the potential, the fact that there is anybody around goes down the drain.

Issue is, that it's worded as in "can endanger" not "potentially endanger", that's the difference. It's not specified whether 'can at that moment' or 'can potentially' is meant here. Hence why I'd love a clarification from Supreme Courts or the Presidential office, 'cause honestly, you can potentially endanger other people by going 80km/h in Los Santos. Means you can pull over whoever you want and charge them 250$, just because they're driving a car.

Sugar, where are you pulling that information out from?

[SugarD]

Issue is, that it's worded as in "can endanger" not "potentially endanger", that's the difference. It's not specified whether 'can at that moment' or 'can potentially' is meant here. Hence why I'd love a clarification from Supreme Courts or the Presidential office, 'cause honestly, you can potentially endanger other people by going 80km/h in Los Santos. Means you can pull over whoever you want and charge them 250$, just because they're driving a car.

Sugar, where are you pulling that information out from?

"Can" and "potentially" are synonyms.

[LSPD_Swat]

Yes, the people doing this should be fined more.

[Pingster]

"Can" and "potentially" are synonyms.

You've learned a different sort of English than I have.